Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 1-hour result caching with <5ms hits, $0.01 per call, first 5 calls free per agent_id, failed calls never charged, and a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with retry semantics. This is well beyond what structured fields convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded and the WHEN blocks are scannable, but the pricing story is told twice ('$0.01 per call' then a full 'Pricing:' paragraph), and 'Read-only and idempotent' merely restates annotations. Tightening would cost nothing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values; it still supplies caching, payment, and retry context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or recover from failure is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each param is documented, but the description adds real interaction semantics the schema does not: omit agent_id and tx_hash during the 5 free trial calls, use the agd_pass_ key after top-up, or settle with tx_hash. It only lacks detail on what a derived client-IP identity means in edge cases.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: audits a live MCP server URL or GitHub repo against Glama's 6-dimension TDQS rubric and compiles drop-in schemas, Agent Cards, and x402/MPP configs. This is clearly distinguishable from the lone sibling get_agent_wallet_status, which is only about wallet/quota status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, with the alternative named: use get_agent_wallet_status to check trial quota or balance, and do not use for unrelated domains or binary media. Routing is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.